Re: First Family and AAT

(no name) ((no email))
10 Oct 95 02:03:51 GMT

In <> (H. M. Hubey) writes:

>Alex Duncan <> writes:

>>Dr. Holloway's suggestion should be taken very seriously. You clearly
>>have a wide and deep ignorance that needs fixing before you presume to
>>lecture anthropologists about the shortcomings of our field. I continue

>I'm an admitted amateur but one thing for sure, I'd never make
>such cocksure statements as those made by some when the evidence
>for it is so little. It's like trying to measure the thickness
>of a human hair with a ruler.

You are an admitted amateur, and you refuse to read the recommended
texts; you continue to argue with professionals from a position of
ignorance in the field. In general, no serious scientist minds
discussing his or her discipline with an amateur, but it would be nice if
you went to the bother of learning something about it before issuing
accusations ex cathedra.

Those "some" who make "cocksure" statements about human evolution (which
apparantly irk you somewhat) base their hypotheses on the interpretation
of what evidence they have. Having stated a hypothesis based on existing
data, one can then try to predict (using the hypothesis) where more
supporting data might be found. If you succeed, the hypothesis may be
right. If you fail, the hypothesis may be wrong. In either case, you
continue trying to predict supporting data until the evidence leans one
way or the other. This is called science whether numbers and formulas
are involved or not. If you choose to argue with the _professionals_ who
have examined _the existing data_ in _detail_, that's fine - science
thrives on questions. But you will have to examine the data in detail
yourself. No-one else will do it for you. Until then, you have no firm
ground on which to stand your objections.

>>Evolution and American Journal of Physical Anthropology. I strongly
>>concur. I also would recommend Klein's "The Human Career" as a good

>Yeah.. I've had people recommend that I read blah blah blah before.
>Usually they're the ones who need to read..

>I won't go any further. I'm in the middle of something else and
>can't afford to take much time out for [...]

>>all sciences) has dramatic shortcomings. However, you don't seem to know
>>what they are, and you won't until you educate yourself a little bit.

>Unfortunately, it seems to be the reverse. I know exactly what the
>shortcomings are. It's the verbiage school that needs to read.
>It can't hurt them except to take away some of their glibness.
>One thing for sure, they'll learn to appreciate the complexity
>and the magnitude of the task that lies before them.

They understand the magnitude of their task all too well. And they take
the time to aquire the tools to complete their task. You don't care to,
or so it would seem.

And perhaps, since you know the shortcomings of this discipline better
than those who spend their lives in it, will you condescend to enlighten us?

...Kevyn Winkless.